Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-24® MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Room B-8 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004 -1:30 P.M. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Mary Beth Broeren STAFF MEMBER: Ron Santos, Ramona Kohlmann (recording secretary) MINUTES: NONE ORAL COMMUNICATION: NONE ITEM 1: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-49NARIANCE NO. 03-15 (CVS PHARMACY) APPLICANT: RHL Design Group, 2401 East Katella Avenue, Suite 400, Anaheim, CA 92806 ® PROPERTY OWNER: Bill Valaika, Valbeach Garfield, LLC, 4770 Campus Drive Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660 REQUEST: CUP: to construct (a) a 13,880 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy with drive - through service in replacement of a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant to be demolished, in an existing commercial center; and (b) to allow compact parking at a ratio of 19% within an existing commercial center; VAR: to allow an existing non -conforming street -side planter width of eight ft. to remain along 85 linear ft. (of 461 linear ft.) of Beach Boulevard property frontage, in lieu of the Code required planter width of 10 feet. LOCATION: 18862 Beach Boulevard (east side of Beach Boulevard, north of Garfield Avenue) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated that the Design Review Board recommended approval to the Zoning Administrator. Staff recommended approval of the request based upon the suggested findings and subject to the suggested conditions as outlined in the executive summary. No written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification and other City departments have recommended no unique conditions. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the plans, elevations and photographs. Discussion ensued with staff concerning the existing building setback, a reciprocal landscape maintenance easement, and location of existing trash compactors. Further discussion ensued concerning the conditioned acoustical study as related to the proposed trash compactor. 40 Ms. Broeren confirmed with staff that the trash collection trucks would not obstruct the path of travel. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bob Superneau, RHL Design Group, 2401 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA, applicant, asked if a reciprocal easement agreement could be placed in the conditions as an alternative means of complying with suggested Condition No. 4.a. Discussion ensued concerning reasons for the reciprocal easement agreement, ownership of the parcels, parking rights, staff's reason for suggested Condition No. 4.a., and code provisions. Gary Schoeppner, 4010 Watson Plaza Drive, #225, Lakewood, CA, developer, stated that the reciprocal easement is desirable to the property owner in the event of future sales of the parcels. Ms. Broeren stated that it is especially desirable to have a parcel map combining properties when parking is being shared. Ms. Broeren confirmed that the foregoing was staff's primary motivation for suggested Condition No. 4.a. Staff further stated that the reason is to resolve potential future issues such as redevelopment of the site. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to approve the request based upon the suggested • findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-49NARIANCE NO. 03-15 WERE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of the replacement of an existing commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - VARIANCE NO. 03-15: 1. The granting of Variance No. 03-15 to allow an existing non -conforming street -side planter width of eight ft. to remain along 85 linear ft. (of 461 linear ft.) of Beach Boulevard property frontage, in lieu of the Code required planter width of 10 feet will not constitute a ZA Minutes 03/24/04 2 (04zm0324) • grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. The existing non -conforming planter width was established in conformance with a now retired version of the zoning ordinance. Many parcels located along Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site were developed to conform with the same standards, and as a result, exist with comparable non -conforming planter widths along the Beach Boulevard street frontage. • 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The requested landscape setback variance addresses an existing non -conforming condition which may be remedied only by creating substandard parking stall depth or drive aisle dimensions, or by partially demolishing an existing building. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property of the privilege to maintain an existing legal non -conforming condition. 3. The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The requested variance is necessary to allow the property owner to replace an existing commercial building with a new commercial building constituting less that 50 percent of the total building floor area within the shopping center. The applicant is proposing to exercise a substantial property right by constructing a commercial building in accordance with the land use and development standards applicable in the zone, including maximum floor area ratio, and minimum parking, landscaping and setback requirements, excepting an existing non -conforming planter width which can not be increased without causing unreasonable hardship. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The requested variance will provide for an existing landscape planter width to remain along a portion (85 linear feet) of the street frontage located approximately 260 feet from the proposed building. The proposed project will provide on -site landscaping as a percentage of the lot which exceeds the minimum required. In addition, the widths of the existing landscape planters located along the remaining portions of the site street frontage (approximately 300 linear feet) will be increased. 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General — 0.35 maximum F.A.R.) on the subject property, including the following Land Use Element policy: LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development, including: (a) incorporation of site landscaping, particularly along street frontages and in parking lots. The requested variance will facilitate a project which includes the widening of approximately 300 linear feet of existing landscape planters located along the street frontage, while allowing approximately 85 linear feet to maintain an existing non- conforming width. The project will provide for significantly more landscaping along the ZA Minutes 03/24/04 3 (04zm0324) street frontage than currently exists on the developed property, and therefore serves to implement LU policy 10.1.12. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-49: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-49 to construct (a) a 13,880 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy with drive -through service in replacement of a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant to be demolished, in an existing commercial center; and (b) to allow compact parking at a ratio of 19% within an existing commercial center; will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent with the land use/ zoning designation applied to the property. The project will not generate noise, traffic, parking or other impacts which are inconsistent with the property's General Commercial zoning designation or existing land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The replacement of an existing vacant building with a new, contemporary -design building is expected to have a positive impact on the value of property in the vicinity. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project consists of the replacement of a commercial building, within an existing shopping center, on a commercially zoned property, adjacent to existing commercial development of similar nature and intensity. The project includes a proposed design for the future exterior remodel of other buildings existing in the shopping center in order to create a cohesive development. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 03-49 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, except for the variance approved concurrently, including permitted land uses, minimum setbacks and parking, and maximum floor area ratio. The HBZSO authorizes compact parking not exceeding 20% of the total number required with approval of a conditional use permit. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of CG-F1 (Commercial General — 0.35 maximum F.A.R.) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: LU 10.1.12: Require that Commercial General uses be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and compatibility with existing uses and development, including: (e) architectural treatment of buildings to minimize visual bulk and mass, using techniques such as the modulation of building volumes and articulation of all elevations. ED 2.4: Revitalize, renovate and expand existing Huntington Beach commercial facilities while attracting new commercial uses. The proposed building complies with the City of Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines for drive -through and general commercial buildings, including modulation of building volumes, articulation of elevations, screening of drive -through lanes and loading areas, and provision of a canopy at the drive -through pick-up window area. 40 ZA Minutes 03/24/04 4 (04zm0324) • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-49NARIANCE NO. 03-15: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated March 5, 2004, shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. A three-foot minimum planter (including 12 inch paved step-off/curb) shall be provided between the proposed trash compactor (north side) and the adjacent parking space. One parking space may be eliminated in order to accommodate the proposed planter, based on the three parking space surplus (in excess of code requirement) proposed, provided that the width of 5 parking spaces along the eastern property line shall be increased by one foot. b. The width of the landscape planter along the street frontage west of the proposed building shall be reduced by two feet in order to provide a 17-foot minimum depth paved surface for proposed compact parking spaces. c. A revised acoustical study shall be submitted which assesses project -related noise impacts and demonstrates compliance with the standards of Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. In particular, the study shall analyze the anticipated noise associated with the proposed trash compactor and shall make reference to the precise location of the compactor units relative to the eastern property line. 2. The elevations received and dated March 10, 2004, shall be the approved design for the future remodel of existing buildings within the shopping center. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, a revised acoustical study shall be submitted which assesses project -related noise impacts and demonstrates compliance with the standards of Chapter 8.40 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. In particular, the study shall analyze the anticipated noise associated with the proposed trash compactor and shall make reference to the precise location of the compactor units relative to the eastern property line. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following shall be completed: a. A tentative parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be filed, approved and recorded — for purposes of merging Assessor's Parcel Numbers 157-452-35, 157-452-36, 157-452- 37 and 157-452-38. b. A planned sign program for the subject property (shopping center) shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the Director of Planning. 5. The area devoted to the sales, display and storage of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 10 percent, except as otherwise approved pursuant to an approved conditional use permit for the specific use, or authorized by the HBZSO. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees ZA Minutes 03/24/04 5 (04zm0324) and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or • annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ITEM 2: VARIANCE NO. 03-03 (BONADONNA SOLARIUM APPLICANT: Phil Edmondson, 2600 Newport Boulevard #114, Newport Beach, CA 92663 PROPERTY OWNER: David Bonadonna, 16915 Edgewater Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST: To permit a 267 sq. ft. patio enclosure existing without permits: (a) projecting five feet beyond the rear property line (over the bulkhead), in lieu of a 10 ft. minimum setback from the rear property line; (b) within the required 45 degree visibility angle measured from the main dwelling building line extended to the side property line; and (c) with 60% lot coverage in lieu of a maximum of 50%. LOCATION: 16915 Edgewater Lane (west side of Edgewater Lane, south of Davenport Drive, Huntington Harbour) PROJECT PLANNER: Ron Santos • Ron Santos, Staff Planner, displayed project plans and photographs and stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing uses of the requested project. Staff presented a review of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated that the request is the result of a Code Enforcement citation. Staff recommended denial of the request based upon the suggested findings for denial as outlined in the executive summary. Staff stated reasons as to why the existing structure does not meet the requirements set forth in suggested Finding No. 3. Staff stated that the proposed project does not meet the definition for a solarium because of the lack of the required 85 percent transmission of light in any direction. Staff stated that letters in opposition to the proposed project were received from the homeowner's association and a resident. No other written or verbal comments were received in response to the public notification. Mary Beth Broeren, Zoning Administrator, reviewed the aforementioned letter from the resident. Discussion ensued with staff concerning code requirements and lot coverage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. David Bonadonna, 16915 Edgewater Lane, property owner, stated that he was present. Phil Edmondson, 2600 Newport Boulevard #114, Newport Beach, CA, applicant, urged the Zoning Administrator's approval of the proposed project. Mr. Edmondson stated that the ZA Minutes 03/24/04 6 (04zm0324) request is based upon their analysis of existing development patterns within the harbor. He stated that there are other noncomforming structures within the harbor and questioned why these structures are permitted to remain. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Broeren reviewed photographs of neighboring properties complete with glass walls and glass roofs, thereby meeting the definition of a solarium unlike the proposed project. Ms. Broeren addressed the City's Code Enforcement policies and procedures noting that this particular case has lingered for over one year. She stated that substantial changes would have to occur in order to bring the subject site to code. Ms. Broeren stated that she was going to deny the request, and suggested that the structure be removed post haste unless the applicant decides to file an appeal. VARIANCE NO. 03-03 WAS DENIED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS. FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Zoning Administrator finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project consists of construction of small accessory structure on an existing, developed lot. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - VARIANCE NO. 03-03: The granting of Variance No. 03-03 to permit a 267 sq. ft. patio enclosure existing without permits: (a) projecting five feet beyond the rear property line (over the bulkhead), in lieu of a 10 ft. minimum setback from the rear property line; (b) within the required 45 degree visibility angle measured from the main dwelling building line extended to the side property line; and (c) with 60% lot coverage in lieu of a maximum of 50%, will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification. 2. The subject property does not exhibit special circumstances, including the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which, when subject to the strict application of the zoning ordinance, deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property is typical in size, shape and width of parcels in the vicinity and under the identical zone classification; presents no topographical constraints to development in accordance with applicable codes; and is not uniquely located nor surrounded by development which is inconsistent with the RL zoning regulations. 0 3. The granting of a variance is not necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The property is currently developed with a 3,634 sq. ft. ZA Minutes 03/24/04 7 (04zm0324) permitted single-family dwelling and attached two -car garage, in addition to the illegally constructed patio enclosure. The permitted single-family dwelling and garage constitutes an exercise of property rights afforded under the applicable RL zoning district regulations. Moreover, the dwelling, together with the garage, (not including the proposed patio enclosure), exceeds the maximum lot coverage permitted in the zone. Furthermore, HBZSO Section 210.06(R)(7) states that solariums and other projections over waterways are declared a privilege and not a vested right. 4. The granting of the variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification. The proposed structure does not comply with code requirements intended in preserve views from adjoining properties and provide adequate open space. Consequently, the proposed structure will have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties and the subject property. 5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the following Land Use Element policy: LU 4.2 — Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations. The proposed project does not comply with at least three code requirements. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:10 PM BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON i WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004 AT 1:30 PM. AMa4etroeren Zoning Administrator rmk0 • ZA Minutes 03/24/04 8 (04zm0324)